PURPOSE: To clarify the feasibility and utility of reduced port surgery (RPS) for achalasia. METHODS: Between September 2005 and June 2013, 359 patients with esophageal achalasia, excluding cases of reoperation, underwent laparoscopic Heller myotomy and Dor fundoplication (LHD) according to our clinical pathway. Three-hundred and twenty-seven patients underwent LHD with five incisions (conventional approach), while the other 32 patients underwent RPS, including eight via SILS. The clinical data were collected in a prospective fashion and retrospectively reviewed. We selected 24 patients matched for gender, age and morphologic type with patients in the RPS group from among the 327 patients (C group). The surgical outcomes were compared between the C and RPS groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in the duration of symptoms, dysphagia score, chest pain score, shape of the distal esophagus and esophageal clearance. The operative time was significantly longer in the RPS group than in the C group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the length of postoperative hospital stay or rates of bleeding, mucosal injury of the esophagus and/or stomach and postoperative complications. The symptom scores significantly improved after surgery in both groups (p < 0.001). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the C group and RPS group in terms of the postoperative symptom scores or satisfaction scores after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical outcomes of RPS for achalasia are comparable to those obtained with the conventional method.
PURPOSE: To clarify the feasibility and utility of reduced port surgery (RPS) for achalasia. METHODS: Between September 2005 and June 2013, 359 patients with esophageal achalasia, excluding cases of reoperation, underwent laparoscopic Heller myotomy and Dor fundoplication (LHD) according to our clinical pathway. Three-hundred and twenty-seven patients underwent LHD with five incisions (conventional approach), while the other 32 patients underwent RPS, including eight via SILS. The clinical data were collected in a prospective fashion and retrospectively reviewed. We selected 24 patients matched for gender, age and morphologic type with patients in the RPS group from among the 327 patients (C group). The surgical outcomes were compared between the C and RPS groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in the duration of symptoms, dysphagia score, chest pain score, shape of the distal esophagus and esophageal clearance. The operative time was significantly longer in the RPS group than in the C group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the length of postoperative hospital stay or rates of bleeding, mucosal injury of the esophagus and/or stomach and postoperative complications. The symptom scores significantly improved after surgery in both groups (p < 0.001). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the C group and RPS group in terms of the postoperative symptom scores or satisfaction scores after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical outcomes of RPS for achalasia are comparable to those obtained with the conventional method.
Authors: S V Kostic; T W Rice; M E Baker; M M Decamp; S C Murthy; L A Rybicki; E H Blackstone; J E Richter Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Giovanni Zaninotto; Mario Costantini; Christian Rizzetto; Lisa Zanatta; Emanuela Guirroli; Giuseppe Portale; Loredana Nicoletti; Francesco Cavallin; Giorgio Battaglia; Alberto Ruol; Ermanno Ancona Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 12.969